Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 128 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Grahamso1 (1912 D)
26 Nov 17 UTC
Extending the pre game time
Is it possible to extend the time while waiting for players in a game I created? If so how? Thanks
3 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
19 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
It's time to talk about Scoring
Hello all!

Let's talk about scoring? More specifically, about whether the dreaded Points Per Supply Center (PPSC) scoring should remain an option?
Page 3 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
@Enriador - Agreed. I'd rather not be slaves to the rulebook, but I do believe the spirit of the game should be followed as well as possible and PPSC encourages people to violate that spirit.
mouse (1825 D)
21 Nov 17 UTC
"1) make WTA the only possible result in solos.

2) make Draw-Size, PPSC and Sum-of-Squares as optional scoring systems in case no winner stands out."

Cannot disagree more strongly. Draws always being split equally is utterly necessary; they are not a result and as such, every player that survives to reach them receives an equal refund on the pot. Saying "oh, it's possible to 'win' a draw by having more centres" falls under exactly the same arguments people are making against PPSC scoring a game that actually has a result.

While I personally would prefer a scoring method that (at least partially) rewards survival in games that do have a result (such as PPSC, or SoS applied to non-drawn games), I'd be willing to keep playing with WTA the only option. Removing that *and* forcing in a draw distribution that's not 'entire pot is split equally among survivors', however, is simply unacceptable.

If you want to limit your grandstanding to potential systems to *add* to the current mix, fine. But don't fucking bundle "adding systems that distribute proportionally to centres/placing in draws and "removing systems that distribute proportionally to centres/placing in games with a result" together as if they're remotely interlinked.
Enriador (1507 D)
21 Nov 17 UTC
@mouse

"Draws always being split equally is utterly necessary". 'Utterly necessary' is a bit too strong, right? webDip has SoS in draws and WW3 hasn't started yet.

Given my proposal (which you quoted), YOUR GAMES can always be WTA/DSS as you wish, while MY GAMES can always be WTA/PPSC or whatever. More options are always better.

Besides, it has already been mentioned that short games should be considered. In short games elimination is a rare thing, and as such we would have 7-way draws happen all the time. A way to further delineate the performance of different powers is by applying PPSC or SoS or C-Diplo, etc.
mouse (1825 D)
21 Nov 17 UTC
>Given my proposal (which you quoted), YOUR GAMES can always be WTA/DSS as you wish, while MY GAMES can always be WTA/PPSC or whatever. More options are always better.

By that logic, *why are you saying to get rid of PPSC* as a method of distributing points in games with results? More options are always better, right? As long as I can have some of my games as PPSC/DSS and others as WTA/DSS, I really don't care what other options there are. It's the attempt to deny options on the 'games with results' front while insisting on them in the 'games with no result (ie. drawn)' that is annoying me at the moment.
No, mouse, more options are not always better. They alter the way the game is played and therefore distort both points and ratings because of people playing for strong seconds even in the draw. The *only* way to have consistent ratings and points is to choose *one* style, whatever it may be, and stick with it.

But the same logic applies to not having variants because variants affect both points and ratings in how many players are in a game. Solo a WWIV game and you rock the points and ratings. Solo an Ancient Med (5 players) and you don't even get as much as you would out of a classic game.

Likewise, allowing games to end early and granting solos with more or less than the usual 50%+1 SCs distorts the scores and ratings.

So, unfortunately, points and ratings are destined to be distorted.

Given this fact, the decision must then be made about *how much* distortion we wish to have. If we wish to reduce it while keeping the variant nature of the site alive, then eliminating PPSC and having draws be an even split would eliminate that aspect of the distortion by following the spirit of the inventor/author.

But here is where I am going to propose something I consider logical yet possibly controversial...

How about we allow all these options but only rate games that use the rulebook standards of "full game, 50% +1 SCs solo, and WTA/DSS points" as rated games. Additionally, allow a scenario to always be unrated like Rinascimento. That way ratings would more accurately reflect classic with the only distortion being a result of the number of players in the various scenarios and any unintentional and unaccounted for scenario imbalances.

OK, that was more like my 2 bucks than 2 cents...
d-ice (1969 D)
22 Nov 17 UTC
@Mercy: "I strongly disagree. I would even argue that the scoring system is an *essential part* of any game, because the scoring system determines what the objective of the game is."

That's exactly why the scoring system makes no sense for single games. The objective of the game is clearly stated in the rulebook. But the objective as written cannot be translated into an algorithm without making assumptions on how to treat short games (see rule III from AH's 1976 rulebook on short games). Without scoring system the objective of each single game will be whatever the players agree that it is (i.e. purists will likely play as written in the rulebook while more relaxed players may prefer to play with their own objectives whatever they may be). With a scoring system the objective is likely to become: get as good score as possible (hence when playing short games the objective will not be true to the original objective of the game whatever the scoring system is). Thus, the only reason for having a scoring system is for running tournaments/ranking - it is not for single games.
Enriador (1507 D)
22 Nov 17 UTC
@mouse

I merely kicked off the debate. I won't cry if PPSC is cast away, or is kept. I reiterate: more options = better.

@YCHT

"So, unfortunately, points and ratings are destined to be distorted."

Yeah, basically. Even vDip points, due to being based on ELO, are prone to drastically distort results. I agree with @d-ice here.

I kinda like your proposed system, @YouCan't. It would have to be limited to Classic though; after all any variant, from WWIV to Cold War, has so many variables that distortion would happen regardless.
@Enriador - I was allowing for a limited amount of acceptable distortion by letting other variants in to the ratings. But there are other factors to look at like public press or gunboat, phase length (live versus longer phases) and such that also affect game outcome, but I don't know how much I would call that distortion.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
22 Nov 17 UTC
Out of curiosity, have you tried any form of rank-based scoring, common in the face-to-face tournament circles?

While such systems do break the principle of sharing equally in a draw, they promote some rather entertaining social politics; for instance, should the lesser powers need to band together to stop a solo, a temptation remains to stab one another in the back (so long as the solo is still prevented).
GOD (1850 D Mod (B))
23 Nov 17 UTC
The stab is always tempting, when no one else is about to solo...
Sometimes the stab leads to the stabber soloing. :-)
d-ice (1969 D)
23 Nov 17 UTC
@nopun: C-diplo (which has been discussed in this thread) is rank-based.
Probably not a popular view, but I really like the PPSC system, it requires a different way of thinking. I like the way it can be more beneficial to support a solo than to fight it. I like the way while attempting a solo you can still have an ally to work with, you have different reasons for wanting the same outcome and that reduces stab risk. Finally I like it because if you stab someone near the end (or even at the beginning/middle) then the person who helped you get into the strong position in which you could from isn't completely screwed out of any of the winnings and still gets a share for their work.
Enriador (1507 D)
23 Nov 17 UTC
C-Diplo is a mix, really. One third of the points is completely dependent on center count.

@TheWorld

I think that's the thread's first post on behalf of PPSC to actually give some reasons besides "Hey what about my choice" (which is also a fair point, I must add).

Your reasons *does* go against Calhamer's stated wishes of "do your best to avoid a solo" and "there is no second place, only a winner and 6 losers". However, if such a dynamic is fun for those who enjoy it, why not allow this little breaking of the rules? Yet, I believe PPSC doesn't properly reward that second-placed "ally" you speak of as well as Sum-of-Squares would.

SoS is the perfect compromise: it greatly benefits the winner, somehow benefits strong seconds, punish 2-center holdouts while still giving them *something* to fight for, and more importantly, has already been coded for the webDiplomacy template. It's ready to go!

Sum-of-Squares is PPSC... on steroids!
mouse (1825 D)
24 Nov 17 UTC
As long as it's only applied to games with a result, the way PPSC currently is, with draws remaining equally split between all survivors, I could support SoS replacing PPSC.
ScubaSteve (1234 D)
24 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
What effect do you think that replacing "survived" with something less positive like "defeated with units" would be?

I can understand why a novice would see the term "survive" and think it is not all bad.
Enriador (1507 D)
24 Nov 17 UTC
@mouse, yes, I believe DSS can remain the default.

@Scuba

I think "Survived" is a terrible moniker, since the guy failed to stop a solo. In a solo, *everyone* has been "Defeated". Survival doesn't mean anything at all.
nopunin10did (1041 D)
24 Nov 17 UTC
Ah, I’d missed the C-Diplo mention. I was thinking more along the lines of Carnage (used at Boston Massacre and some other tournaments):

https://sites.google.com/site/bostonmassacrediplomacy/rules

It could be modified slightly to yield a zero-sum system.
So describe sum of squares. If it is what it sounds like, a 17 center nation stopped by 6 3-center nations is going to really profit with nearly 85% of the pot.
Chumbles (1380 D)
24 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
I like PPSC; it gives you more choices on playstyle and I guess I'd give up playing if it were not available. It's why I decamped from webDip. I;d be happiest with SoS added to the existing two options as then it would be your choice whether to join a game with that scoring method. I do not see why you have to exclude one to get the other.

If you wanted to get a 'purer' system, then WTA has to be it. You win or you get an equal share in a draw. That's it,
d-ice (1969 D)
24 Nov 17 UTC
@YCHTT: that’s exactly it. It was designed to reduce eliminations, since eliminations is one of the major issues that cause newbies to not want to play again after their first game. Why does it work? It’s because a 17-3-3-3-3-3-2 scores a ton more points compared to 17-16-1-0-0-0-0.

I’m not a big fan of SoS, but I clearly see its selling arguments, it’s a system that deserves to be an option.
Altering the game to cater to new players is like chess with mulligans.
d-ice (1969 D)
24 Nov 17 UTC
Some like it, other don’t. I don’t. But I see no reason not to have it as an option.
Enriador (1507 D)
25 Nov 17 UTC
@YouCan't

What is the problem a 17 center power stopped by 6 3-center powers getting 85% of the points? It's working as designed.

Sum-of-Squares aims two things: 1) to divide and 2) conquer. A player with 17 centers facing a heavily divided opposition, all of them very weak in comparision, is way more close to a solo than a 17-15-3 result.

As such, the result is just: the 17-center power not just conquered half of the board, but manipulated the political balance of the board well enough to heavily divide the opposition. It's more than worth the 85% in my humble opinion.

Rest assured that it's not a system to "cater to newbies" - it does have that lovely side effect which infuses new blood into the hobby - proof of that is the last, err, *World Diplomacy Con*, which used Sum-of-Squares.

Anyone fundamentally against having SoS as an *option*, together with WTA and PPSC?
mouse (1825 D)
25 Nov 17 UTC
I'd argue that anyone who's against the perverting effects PPSC has on gameplay should be similarly against using SoS to adjudicate draws (the fact people who are against PPSC to allocate points on games with a result would also be against SoS in that instance is taken as a given) - just as someone who could score by forcing someone else to win is unlikely to play for the draw they should be, so too is someone who's scoring next to nothing from a 'draw' that won't be scored as such significantly more likely to throw the game from spite rather than play to such an unrewarding draw.
@Enriador - the problem is an 18 center solo having to share the pot at all. I hate PPSC and I hate how it distorts the rankings even for WTA only players like myself.
d-ice (1969 D)
25 Nov 17 UTC
Most scoring systems I know (including C-diplo and SoS) does in fact award all points to the winner in case of solo.
mouse (1825 D)
25 Nov 17 UTC
At which point all they're doing is encouraging players in a draw to jockey for position rather than play optimally to prevent a solo, thus distorting the rankings exactly as much as PPSC does.
d-ice (1969 D)
25 Nov 17 UTC
@mouse: the ranking system is already distorted to a point where it’s meaningless at best (e.g. by including many-player variants such as WWIV and two-player such as Austria-France). Hence that argument is pretty lame. Also I think you might be missing one of the main premises that Enriador and myself put forth in this discussion: short games. These games need other goals than scoring equally between all players in a DIAS or they would be rather meaningless to play.
Enriador (1507 D)
25 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
In actual SoS, the soloer gets the entire pot. If no one gets the required number of SCs to win, *then* SoS applies. Plain and simple.

I don't know if this is feasible here, codewise, but in any case it's simply a buffed up version of PPSC without many of its shortcomings. It would be a fine addition!

Page 3 of 4
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

98 replies
Major Problems (1364 D)
23 Nov 17 UTC
(+1)
1 v 1 games on variant maps
I am not a coder (sic) so I was wondering how hard is/was it to code 1 v 1 games? Is it reasonable to think that variant maps (Modern, Ancient Med, etc) could be set up to create 1 v 1 games? The idea of having a larger group of countries to play against each other is intriguing. I just don't know if it possible, or doable.
2 replies
Open
Grahamso1 (1912 D)
22 Nov 17 UTC
(+2)
How old school are you?
I am not very tech savvy so forgive me. I think I started dip on some RSS pages using Netscape at work in maybe 1996(?) does that make sense? All email based through Judges. What were they called? USDJ or something. I remember FROG but they all spoke French. Haha. I used to stand outside my office in the snow smoking a cig with a hand drawn map with about 100 crossing out for each phase using coloured pens. Ah web based interactive maps?!?! Luxury!!!
5 replies
Open
Jamie_T (895 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
Notices
The notices on my front page are all jumbled up in a random order. PMs from weeks ago are at the top, and some of my game messages from the past day or two are lower down. Is anyone else noticing this?
9 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
09 Oct 17 UTC
Napoleonic Variant, and the lack of neutral centers
I had the honor to play 'Napoleonic' back in the lab (an awful game as Spain by the way). I had a question back then which I ask here and now:

Why there are no neutral supply centers?
23 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
20 Mar 17 UTC
Fixing the Pirates variant
With the new Lab up and running, as discussed in the DiplomacyGames podcast I'm keen to iron out the bugs in Pirates that people hate...
51 replies
Open
jason4747 (1633 D)
20 Nov 17 UTC
"Biggest Game of All Time Completed"- worth a look
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=205586
By the nice people at WebDip.
Pot: 31,500  - Spring, 1918, Finished - Germany dominates at 17
10 replies
Open
The Real Wheat (969 D)
16 Nov 17 UTC
New Maps
I'm super new to the site and I was curious how new maps were made and/or submitted. I noticed a lot of the maps look a bit old and it got me thinking about what it would take to create a higher resolution version of a game map. Are there certain file formats a map must be in or is this all a responsibility for site admins only? Thanks!
11 replies
Open
Major Problems (1364 D)
17 Nov 17 UTC
Imperium Diplomacy
Under the variants, I noticed one called Imperium Diplomacy, but was not able to create a game using this variant. Is it a discontinued variant, or under a different name? It looks like an interesting one, especially the beginning turns.
5 replies
Open
DemonOverlord (910 D)
07 Oct 17 UTC
Vdip colour scheme
Hi, I think vdip would be more successful with a different colour scheme. Also less painful to look at.
31 replies
Open
rebecca02 (1000 D X)
15 Nov 17 UTC
locks of hair
Beautiful.
1 reply
Open
JECE (1534 D)
10 Nov 17 UTC
Custom phase bug
This might be better in the Mods section, but I thouht I'd post here first to see if other users have any input.

I'm trying to create a new game with a custom phase length. When I select "Custom" from the drop-down menu, nothing happens. However, when I select "2 days, 2 hours", I've given the option to input a phase length. Hopefully this is an easy fix.
3 replies
Open
KingCyrus (1258 D)
01 Nov 17 UTC
WWII Update Errors
Hello, I am currently in a game of WWII and I was just informed that it has been updated, "fixing" problems with dual coasts. This supposedly means that Palestine now has two coasts. However, I have a fleet in the Red Sea and it can no longer move to Palestine! Please fix?
1 reply
Open
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
20 Oct 17 UTC
(+1)
Replacement Player(s) Needed
I need replacement players game sitters for several games:
13 replies
Open
peterlund (1080 D)
30 Sep 17 UTC
I have reported 2 Issues for vdiplomacy to kestasjk/webDiplomacy
Bug 1: "Turn limited vDip games should end after possible retreats" (Issue 261)

Bug/Questions 2; "How does vDip decide who the winner is?" (Issue 262)
17 replies
Open
BenjaminHester (1035 D)
25 Oct 17 UTC
(+1)
not quite ready, but... SE Asia 800
going to refine Balkans 1860 and Sengoku: Nagashino as needed before trying to implement this one. Thought I would just give y'all a peek behind the curtain. Thoughts welcome! (it has a few known imbalances to address, but it's close.)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2CiokzfWGBhTlU0QTZZNzNrUEU
6 replies
Open
Jamie_T (895 D)
04 Oct 17 UTC
(+4)
MAFIA 1 - GAME THREAD
This is the game thread for vDip Mafia, Episode 1

Please DO NOT post in this thread if you are not playing in the Mafia game.
1560 replies
Open
Flame (1073 D)
23 Oct 17 UTC
Austrian question once again!
Please help with testing a map "War of Austrian Succession"
http://lab.diplomail.ru/board.php?gameID=51

Fast gunboat.
1 reply
Open
Flame (1073 D)
05 Oct 17 UTC
(+1)
Classic 1898 Variant adaptation
I do the adaptation for 1898 variant. Who knows the author of the variant to mention him in the description. Or it's Hasbro itself?

http://lab.diplomail.ru/board.php?gameID=43
7 replies
Open
Tactics
In year one when you just meeting everyone, maybe there anonymous but for sure you don't know any of them. How do you know who to trust?
They can be lying through their teeth and text doesn't show tone of voice or eye contact so you have no idea. If you believe them they may stab you. If you don't you venture into a DMZ and piss them off. Ask around to others and you get rumors or nothing. This game seems so much better suited to face to face.
15 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
17 Oct 17 UTC
Classic Mini-Tourney - Is there interest?
I thought about making a mini-tourney - comprising a single game - using a similar scheme to most Face-to-Face scoring systems.

Basically it'll be a Classic game, running until Fall 1907 and a PPSC structure. The bet would be 100 points - for a ultimate pot worth 700 points.
26 replies
Open
Grahamso1 (1912 D)
13 Oct 17 UTC
Unable to enter certain orders. How to contact GM
Can someone help. I am playing one of the odder variants. New for me. I’ve read the variant page repeatedly and seems I ought to be able to enter a certain order. But it’s not available as an option. (Maybe I’m missing something. Or maybe a bug). Emailed the mods. But how do I contact GameMaster min a gunboat game?
Thanks
2 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
09 Oct 17 UTC
(+5)
I love vDip
Enjoying this new golden age of variant development.

Hat tip to Oli and those building variants and supporting their development in the background.
5 replies
Open
FafevPlinskv (1039 D)
10 Oct 17 UTC
Taking over
Need help with a gunboat game, good position but sadly don't have time for it for a moment. PM for more details
0 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
08 Oct 17 UTC
Napoleonic
Hey, where are the neutrals?

;-)
0 replies
Open
Jamie_T (895 D)
10 Sep 17 UTC
vDiplomacy Forum Mafia
Would anyone be interested in playing forum based Mafia / Werewolf here, on the vDip forum?
154 replies
Open
Enriador (1507 D)
04 Oct 17 UTC
Reliability system
I looked over Google but couldn't find any topic explaining the reliability system - can anyone hand out an example, and explain how noobs are handled? Thanks a lot in advance!
10 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
19 Sep 17 UTC
Win Conditions less than majority
Some of you with a bit more experience at vDip can clue me in here.

How does vDip currently adjudicate when more than one player meets the SC requirement for victory simultaneously? More details below.
38 replies
Open
brainbomb (662 D)
01 Oct 17 UTC
Variance
Varients my style Skippin paddy wagon rattle dash colum mile Flyin off the handle and I dial Clone pile vna for my DNA Rabid as a rattler in a CNA gettin paid like the Destin Pa Handle this festive kudza On a fish. Get you lil bliss Gimme smooch. Im a wish.
4 replies
Open
Page 128 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top